5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Sfântu-Gheorghe.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant, with the assistance of a lawyer, brought proceedings against a third party seeking the annulment of a will and the acknowledgement of her inheritance rights. She estimated the value of the deceased’s estate to be 31,800 lei (RON) (approximately 9,244 euros (EUR)).
7.  By a judgment of 21 December 2005 the Iaşi District Court, acting as a court of first-instance, allowed the applicant’s action on the merits and acknowledged her inheritance rights. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to appeal within fifteen days of notification. The third party appealed.
8.  By a judgment of 4 April 2007 the Iaşi County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, allowed the third party’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 21 December 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s action. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to an appeal on points of law (recurs) within fifteen days of notification. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
9.  At the hearing of 10 October 2007 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, of its own motion, raised a preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It allowed the parties to submit observations on whether the ordinary appeal brought by the third party before the Iaşi County Court should have been reclassified by that court as an appeal on points of law, considering the value of the disputed estate and the applicable rules of civil procedure.
10.  On 24 October 2007 the applicant submitted written observations before the Iaşi Court of Appeal concerning the preliminary objection it had raised. She contested it by arguing, inter alia, that an action seeking the annulment of an instrument could not be valued and considered to have a pecuniary component. In addition, Law no. 304/2004 expressly stated that an appeal on points of law had to be examined by a court sitting as a bench of three judges. Consequently, by allowing the preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal would be ignoring a mandatory legal provision concerning the composition of the bench.
11.  By a final judgment of 14 November 2007 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible without touching on the merits of the case. It held that, under Article 2811 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, judgments delivered by first-instance courts in respect of disputes where the subject-matter of the litigation had been valued at less than one billion Romanian lei (approximately EUR 27,000) were not subject to an ordinary appeal. The applicant had estimated the value of the disputed estate to be EUR 9,244. A dispute between parties which concerned the annulment of a legal instrument relating to a particular estate had a pecuniary content and could be valued. The value of the assets specified in the legal instrument had to be taken into consideration for the purposes of establishing which court had jurisdiction. The value indicated by the applicant was the only criteria for establishing the value of the estate concerned. Consequently, the only relevant criteria in determining the competent court was the value of the assets specified in the instrument the applicant sought to annul. Therefore, the proceedings brought by the applicant were regulated by Article 2811 and consequently the judgment delivered by the District Court could only be challenged by way of an appeal on points of law. The lawfulness and thoroughness of that judgment had been examined by the County Court. Under Article 2811 the Court of Appeal no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction to review the aforementioned judgments. The fact that the County Court had erroneously decided and classified the applicant’s challenge of the District Court judgment as an ordinary appeal rather than an appeal on points of law did not have any legal significance. The type of appeal that could be lodged against judgments was prescribed by law and not by the courts. The fact that the County Court had wrongfully classified the applicant’s challenge could not result in a breach of the mandatory provisions of Article 2811, which provided for two levels of jurisdiction by creating a third. Consequently, the court had no subject-matter jurisdiction and could not examine the applicant’s reasons for the appeal on points of law.